Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sonu vs State Of Punjab on 5 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034488
2024:PHHC:034488
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
235
CRR-5021-2015
Date of Decision: March 05, 2024
Sonu ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Vinay Puri, Advocate for the petitioner .
Mr. Rishab Singla, AAG Punjab.
****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
This revision has been preferred against the judgment dated
28.07.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar vide which
judgment of conviction and order of quantum of sentence dated 04.12.2014
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalandhar in FIR, bearing
No.40 dated 26.05.2010 under Sections420, 465, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC
registered at Police Station New Barandari, Jalandhar, was upheld. The
petitioner was sentenced as under: -
Offence Sentence
Section 420 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and a fine of Rs.
1000/-, in default of which simple imprisonment for 3
months.
Section 465 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and a fine of Rs.
500/-, in default of which simple imprisonment for 1
month.
Section 467 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and a fine of Rs.
2000/-, in default of which simple imprisonment for 6
months.
Section 468 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and a fine of Rs.
1000/-, in default of which simple imprisonment for 3
months.
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034488
2024:PHHC:034488
Section 471 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and a fine of Rs.
500/-, in default of which simple imprisonment for 1
month.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. The facts, in brief, are that the FIR was registered by order dated
11.01.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, in the case
titled, "State v. Maya Babu", according to which, the petitioner-accused
furnished a forged and fabricated jamabandi in Court, at the time of furnishing
bail bonds. After receiving a report from the District Collector that no person
by the name of Sonu, son of Swarna, was living at the address mentioned and
that the jambandi attached with the surety bonds was forged and fabricated, the
report of the Collector, along with the affidavit filed by surety, copy of the
jamabandi, copy of the identity card of surety and attesting witness, and a copy
of the Ration Card was sent to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar.
Resultantly, a case was registered against the petitioner and the FIR was
lodged.
3. On being charged under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 of the
IPC by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalandhar, the petitioner
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution examined as many as 07 witnesses to prove its
case. Thereafter, prosecution failed to conclude its evidence despite availing
numerous opportunities and prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated
22.09.2014. Subsequently, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of
Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded, wherein the petitioner pleaded false
implication, however, no witness was examined in order to prove the
innocence of the petitioner.
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034488
2024:PHHC:034488
5. After taking into account all the material on record, the petitioner
was convicted by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 04.12.2014.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Lower
Appellate Court, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 28.07.2015.
CONTENTIONS
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is not assailing
the impugned judgment of conviction dated 04.12.2014 on merits and restricts
his prayer to modification of the order of quantum of sentence to that of the
sentence already undergone by the petitioner as he has already undergone a
period of 01 year, 02 months and 04 days in custody. Furthermore, no other
case is pending against him.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
petitioner has reformed and intends to live his life as a law-abiding citizen.
7. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the
petitioner as the learned trial Court has passed a well-reasoned judgment based
on correct appreciation of evidence available on record, which has beenupheld
by the learned Lower Appellate Court, and as such, he does not deserve any
leniency.
OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSIS
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-
book with their able assistance.
9. In Deo Narain Mandal v. State State of UP (2004) 7 SCC 257, a
three Judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that awarding of
sentence is not a mere formality in criminal cases. When a minimum and
maximum term is prescribed by the statute with regard to the period of
sentence, a discretionary element is vested in the Court. Background of each
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034488
2024:PHHC:034488
case, which includes factors like gravity of the offence, manner in which the
offence is committed, age of the accused, should be considered while
determining the quantum of sentence and this discretion is not to be used
arbitrarily or whimsically. After assessing all relevant factors, proper sentence
should be awarded bearing in mind the principle of proportionality to ensure
the sentence is neither excessively harsh nor does it come across as lenient.
Further, a two Judge Bench in Ravada Sasikala v. State of AP AIR 2017 SC
1166, has reiterated that the imposition of sentence also serves a social purpose
as it acts as a deterrent by making the accused realise the damage caused not
only to the victim but also to the society at large. The law in this regard is well
settled that opportunities of reformation must be granted and such discretion is
to be exercised by evaluating all attending circumstances of each case by
noticing the nature of the crime, the manner in which the crime was committed
and the conduct of the accused to strike a balance between the efficacy of law
and the chances of reformation of the accused. In order to determine the
quantum of sentence, Courts should bear in mind the principle of
proportionality as awarding punishment is not merely retributive but also
reformative.
10. As per the custody certificate produced by the learned State
counsel, details of custody period of the petitioner are tabulated as under: -
Sr Particulars Period Duration
No.
1. Custody under trial 04/10/2012 to 3 months and 15
17/01/2013 days
2. Custody after conviction 28/07/2015 to 10 months and 24
16/06/2016 days
3. Interim bail - -
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034488
2024:PHHC:034488
4. Actual custody period after 28/07/2015 to 10 months and 24
conviction 16/06/2016 days
5. Actual undergone period 04/10/2012 to 1 year, 2 months
17/01/2013 and and 04 days
28/07/2015 to
16/06/2016
6. Earned remission - -
7. Total sentence including 04/10/2012 to 1 year, 2 months
remission 17/01/2013 and and 04 days
28/07/2015 to
16/06/2016
11. A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court
and the Lower Appellate Court indicates no perversity in their finding and the
same are based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record.
Moreover, counsel for the petitioner has not assailed the judgment of
conviction on merits, rather he has restricted his prayer only qua quantum of
sentence.
CONCLUSION
12. The FIR in the present case was lodged on 26.05.2010 and the
case was instituted in the trial Court on 27.10.2012. The petitioner has faced
the agony of a protracted trial, which has lasted for approximately 11 years.
Since his conviction in the present case, the petitioner has grown into a law-
abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life. As per his custody certificate,
there are no other criminal cases pending against him. Out of the total sentence
of 02 years under Sections 420, 467 IPC, 01 year under Section 468 IPC, and 6
months under Sections 465, 471 IPC, the petitioner has undergone actual
sentence of 01 year, 02 months and 04 days. Accordingly, this Court is of the
opinion that it would be in the interest of justice if the sentence awarded to the
petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him.
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034488
2024:PHHC:034488
16. Consequently, the present revision is disposed of in the following
terms:-
(i) The judgment dated 28.07.2015 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar confirming the
conviction of the petitioner is upheld, however, the order
of sentence dated 04.12.2014 is modified to the extent
that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 02 years
under Sections 420, 467 IPC, 01 year under Section 468
IPC, and 06 months under Sections 465, 471 IPC, (to run
concurrently) awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the
period of sentence already undergone by him.
(ii) The sentence of fine of an amount of Rs.5000/- imposed
upon the petitioner, by the trial Court is increased to
Rs.10,000/-. The petitioner is directed to deposit the
increased amount of fine in the trial Court within one
month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
order and in case of default of payment of fine, the
petitioner shall be liable to be taken into custody and
made to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.
17. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
March 05, 2024 JUDGE
manisha
(i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
(ii) Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034488
6 of 6
